Global Warmin Related to the Sun

[Rebel]

Baliunas Says Global Warming Related To Sun

In her lecture series, "Warming Up to the Truth: The Real Story About Climate Change," astrophysicist Dr. Sallie Baliunas shared her findings Tuesday at the University of Texas at Tyler R. Don Cowan Fine and Performing Arts Center.

Dr. Baliunas' work with fellow Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics astronomer Willie Soon suggests global warming is more directly related to solar variability than to increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, an alternative view to what's been widely publicized in the mainstream media.

....but what does she know, she's just an Astrophysicist. I'm sure TNO can set this uneducated women straight.


http://www.tylerpaper.com/article/20080213/NEWS08/802130360

[DixieBelle]

Well, Rebel she's a girl. We can't possibly grasp such technical concepts. I bet her critics are scrambling. Good for them - it's about time the loons stepped away from the microphone to let the adults have a real conversation.

[Jack Pott]

....but what does she know, she's just an Astrophysicist. I'm sure TNO can set this uneducated women straight.

http://www.tylerpaper.com/article/20080213/NEWS08/802130360

The theory that the Sun causes global warming is logical but not entirely accurate. We all know that the climate has changed in the past and that the reasons for those changes have been natural. But recent studies (one study is posted below) show that the Sun does not explain the warming we've had during the past decades. Even most scientists who blame the Sun admit that the Sun doesn't explain the recent warming. They say scientists may have underestimated the effect the Sun might have on global warming, but they admit that the Sun isn't a major cause for global warming. The scientist in your article said:

"Some people argue solar influence is large; some argue it is small. I'm somewhere in the middle,"

http://www.tylerpaper.com/article/20080213/NEWS08/802130360

http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/h844264320314105/

[Rebel]

What recent warming? How many posts and links do you need showing you areas throughout the globe that are experiencing unusually cold temperatures?

[DixieBelle]

What recent warming? How many posts and links do you need showing you areas throughout the globe that are experiencing unusually cold temperatures?

I guess they aren't done with the microphone.

[Lauri]

What recent warming? How many posts and links do you need showing you areas throughout the globe that are experiencing unusually cold temperatures?

we have too much snow here in Wa. State.. the tree huggers have some law about dumping the tens of thousands of truckloads of it in the rivers, so.. they dump the snow, in the dumps.

Idaho and Oregon also are having huge snow falls... dont know if its record breaking yet or not, but its definitely unusual for this side of the country..

[Splashdown]

Whoa!

In other news flooding is related to water! 

[The Night Owl]

...but what does she know, she's just an Astrophysicist. I'm sure TNO can set this uneducated women straight.

I think that you may be the one who needs to be set straight. Dr. Sallie Baliunas is not saying that global warming is due entirely to solar variability. Nor is she ruling out the possibility that human activities may be playing a significant or even large role in global warming. She is simply stating her opinion that solar variability has a greater impact on climate than what some believe it has.

Try to keep in mind that scientists studying global warming have not ruled out the possibility that it may be the result of both natural forces and human activity. I know I haven't.

[The Night Owl]

What recent warming? How many posts and links do you need showing you areas throughout the globe that are experiencing unusually cold temperatures?

You're confusing climate with weather. The weather on any given day is just one data point. Drawing a conclusion about climate based on one data point doesn't make sense.

[DixieBelle]

She also said civilizations have always looked for the cause of climate changes.

In 16th and 17th century Europe, thousands were executed for what was called "weather cooking," where religious and political institutions blamed witches - mostly women - for poor growing periods or storms.

I somehow missed that!

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/v=zrzMhU_4m-g[/youtube]
 

[Attero Dominatus]

She also said civilizations have always looked for the cause of climate changes.

In 16th and 17th century Europe, thousands were executed for what was called "weather cooking," where religious and political institutions blamed witches - mostly women - for poor growing periods or storms.

I somehow missed that!

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/v=zrzMhU_4m-g[/youtube]
 

Great find!

[Jack Pott]

What recent warming? How many posts and links do you need showing you areas throughout the globe that are experiencing unusually cold temperatures?

There are places where there have been unusually cold temperatures (such as winter storms in places that don't usually have even snow) but overall the planet is warming. There aren't many who deny the warming. The debate is about what causes the warming.

By the way, I live in Finland and we've had an incredibly warm winter. There was no snow on Christmas. That'll give you an idea how warm the winter has been.   

[Jack Pott]

Try to keep in mind that scientists studying global warming have not ruled out the possibility that it may be the result of both natural forces and human activity. I know I haven't.

Have you read about the following study concerning the Sun?:

http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2753395.ece

[Ptarmigan]

Well gees, the Sun influences Earth's climate. The Sun is getting larger. It will be a supergiant and Earth will be a barren world.

[WinOne4TheGipper]

Baliunas Says Global Warming Related To Sun

In her lecture series, "Warming Up to the Truth: The Real Story About Climate Change," astrophysicist Dr. Sallie Baliunas shared her findings Tuesday at the University of Texas at Tyler R. Don Cowan Fine and Performing Arts Center.

Dr. Baliunas' work with fellow Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics astronomer Willie Soon suggests global warming is more directly related to solar variability than to increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, an alternative view to what's been widely publicized in the mainstream media.

....but what does she know, she's just an Astrophysicist. I'm sure TNO can set this uneducated women straight.


http://www.tylerpaper.com/article/20080213/NEWS08/802130360

That's unpossible.  Everyone knows that the main source of heat on earth is cow farts!

[Rebel]

Well gees, the Sun influences Earth's climate. The Sun is getting larger. It will be a supergiant and Earth will be a barren world.

Not if we stop driving SUVs and flying in planes. Well, we meaning us, people like Gore should remain exempt because they brought this amazing knowledge to our attention. So, if we stop driving SUVs and flying so much, the Sun will stay the same size.

[DixieBelle]

Well gees, the Sun influences Earth's climate. The Sun is getting larger. It will be a supergiant and Earth will be a barren world.

Not if we stop driving SUVs and flying in planes. Well, we meaning us, people like Gore should remain exempt because they brought this amazing knowledge to our attention. So, if we stop driving SUVs and flying so much, the Sun will stay the same size.

I wonder if you put that on a t-shirt if the libtards would buy it.

[Chris_]

...but what does she know, she's just an Astrophysicist. I'm sure TNO can set this uneducated women straight.

I think that you may be the one who needs to be set straight. Dr. Sallie Baliunas is not saying that global warming is due entirely to solar variability. Nor is she ruling out the possibility that human activities may be playing a significant or even large role in global warming. She is simply stating her opinion that solar variability has a greater impact on climate than what some believe it has.

Try to keep in mind that scientists studying global warming have not ruled out the possibility that it may be the result of both natural forces and human activity. I know I haven't.

But you and your ilk are willing to give up liberty and treasure even though you really have no freaking idea.  GW is not even a hypothesis and you know it.

[Chris_]

Well gees, the Sun influences Earth's climate. The Sun is getting larger. It will be a supergiant and Earth will be a barren world.

You are right.  Al Gore needs to go back to the U.N. and call for the immediate cessation of solar activity.

[Jack Pott]

GW is not even a hypothesis and you know it.

Like I said before, there aren't many scientists who deny global warming. Even skeptics admit that global warming is happening. The debate is about what causes it.

Well gees, the Sun influences Earth's climate. The Sun is getting larger. It will be a supergiant and Earth will be a barren world.

You are right.  Al Gore needs to go back to the U.N. and call for the immediate cessation of solar activity.

Solar activity 'not the cause of global warming'
 
11 July 2007
 
Claims that increased solar activity is the cause of global warming - rather than man-made greenhouse gases - have been comprehensively disproved by a detailed study of the Sun.

Scientists have delivered the final blow to the theory that recent global warming can be explained by variations in the natural cycles of the Sun - a favourite refuge for climate sceptics who dismiss the influence of greenhouse-gas emissions.

An analysis of the records of all of the Sun's activities over the past few decades - such as sunspot cycles and magnetic fields - shows that since 1985 solar activity has decreased significantly, while global warming has continued to increase.

Mike Lockwood, of the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Chilton, Oxfordshire, said: "In 1985, the Sun did a U-turn in every respect. It no longer went in the right direction to contribute to global warming. We think it's almost completely conclusive proof that the Sun does not account for the recent increases in global warming."

The study, published today in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society A, shows there is no doubt that solar activity over the past 20 years has run in the opposite direction to global warming, and therefore cannot explain rises in average global temperatures.

http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2753395.ece

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Solar activity 'not the cause of global warming'
 
11 July 2007

Than what is warming-up Mars?

[The Night Owl]

Solar activity 'not the cause of global warming'
 
11 July 2007

Than what is warming-up Mars?

Dust storms.

[Chris_]

Solar activity 'not the cause of global warming'
 
11 July 2007

Than what is warming-up Mars?

Rising expectations.

[Chris_]

GW is not even a hypothesis and you know it.

Like I said before, there aren't many scientists who deny global warming. Even skeptics admit that global warming is happening. The debate is about what causes it.

I can't help but notice you chopped off the first part of my statement. Let me repeat it for you: "But you and your ilk are willing to give up liberty and treasure even though you really have no freaking idea. "

GW is perhaps an observed phenomenon.  The observation period is so small that it has no statistical nor scientific significance (except for fund raising purposes).  And, of course, we are on a global cooling trend for the last 5 years.  This is why the guesses of scientists on the cause (which is what makes a scientific theory) cannot and do not pass scientific muster.  A 2% fluctuation in a 20 year period on an object that occupies 1,083,206,246,123,080,894,852 cubic meters, and is 4.5 billion years old? That is why they won't posit theories.

An analysis of the records of all of the Sun's activities over the past few decades - such as sunspot cycles and magnetic fields - shows that since 1985 solar activity has decreased significantly, while global warming has continued to increase.

Mike Lockwood, of the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Chilton, Oxfordshire, said: "In 1985, the Sun did a U-turn in every respect. It no longer went in the right direction to contribute to global warming. We think it's almost completely conclusive proof that the Sun does not account for the recent increases in global warming."

The study, published today in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society A, shows there is no doubt that solar activity over the past 20 years has run in the opposite direction to global warming, and therefore cannot explain rises in average global temperatures.

But they can't explain GW, nor can they provide a scientific theory for same. Climatology is an infant "science."  It can't provide useful theories (evolution can by the way), it can only provide guesses. As long as scientists get paid for those guesses, it will continue to thrive.

That would be OK, if it weren't for the trillions of dollars and impossible to quantify loss in human liberty it produces.

AGW is a political position, not a scientific one.

[The Night Owl]

GW is perhaps an observed phenomenon.  The observation period is so small that it has no statistical nor scientific significance (except for fund raising purposes).  And, of course, we are on a global cooling trend for the last 5 years.  This is why the guesses of scientists on the cause (which is what makes a scientific theory) cannot and do not pass scientific muster.  A 2% fluctuation in a 20 year period on an object that occupies 1,083,206,246,123,080,894,852 cubic meters, and is 4.5 billion years old? That is why they won't posit theories.

A 20 year period? The NASA global temperature record goes back 125 years and the CRU global temperature record goes back 150 years...

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

And, borehole analysis yields temperature data going back 500 years...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/borehole/index.html

I can't help but think that if you were confident in your pronouncement that scientists don't have enough data to make predictions about climate that you wouldn't be trying to minimize the amount of data they actually have. Then again, maybe you're just misinformed.

AGW is a political position, not a scientific one.

The finest scientific institutions the world has ever known disagree with you. No offense, but the opinions of the finest scientific institutions in the world have more weight than the opinion of Freedumb2003, a guy on the Internet.